The clear intention of Indian legislators was to protect the Indian public from thieves by banning the instigation, operation and promotion all money circulation schemes based on the specious economic theory of endless-chain recruitment + endless-payments = endless-profits for all participants (no matter how cleverly these frauds might be disguised). During the late 1970s, Indian legislators compiled what they considered to be the essential identifying characteristics of this type of crime. Thus, allowing qualified Indian law enforcement agents and prosecutors to gather the evidence which would allow learned Indian judges to decide whether such a pernicious theft is actually being perpetrated.
The unqualified Indian television journalists who have reported the 'speakasiaonline' fraud, have apparently decided that there is a loophole in the Indian law which bans money circulation schemes, but this only demonstrates their own lack of understanding of what are the essential identifying characteristics of an unlawful money circulation scheme. Like many casual observers, these journalists imagine that such frauds can only be clearly recognised and successfully prosecuted if they are disguised as 'investment opportunities,' and that their instigators cannot be held to account if they, and their legal representatives, steadfastly pretend unlawful payments to be 'lawful transactions within a lawful business opportunity.'
I have to say that although the existing Indian legislation was well-conceived, and is probably adequate, it could be made even more effective. I would again respectfully point out to Indian legislators, law enforcement agents and judges, that the simple test to determine whether an unlawful money circulation scheme (dissimulated as a 'lawful business opportunity') is being operated, is to discover whether significant numbers of the scheme's participants have regularly been retailing the scheme's products, and/or services, to the public for a profit, or whether they have merely been buying effectively-unsaleable products, and/or services, and endeavouring to recruit more and more participants to do the same. If any so-called 'business opportunity' has no significant, or sustainable, revenue (other than payments from its own participants - no matter how these payments are arbitrarily defined by the scheme's instigators, and/or its apologists), then it is actually a closed-market swindle in which ill-informed victims have been peddled infinite shares of their own finite money.
Therefore, it might be a good idea for Indian legislators to make it an additional criminal offence to dissimulate this type of fraud. That said, what the instigators of 'speakasiaonline' have been doing is already defined, and banned, by common law; for they have been lying to, and hiding the truth from, the Indian public in order to make money, which is clearly a form of theft.
The fact that the real beneficiaries of the 'speakasiaonline' fraud have also hidden their criminal activities behind a labyrinth of corporate structures (some of which are registered outside of India) in order to prevent, and/or divert, investigation and isolate themselves from liability, proves them to be not just common thieves, but major racketeers. If Indian law does not define racketeering, then surely, given the scale of this pernicious criminal enterprise, the reality-inverting instigators of 'speakasiaonline' (and their reality-inverting apologists) should be dealt with as an ongoing threat to democracy and the rule of law within the Republic of India.
Until all these greedy 'business opportunity' parasites are fully-recognised, and severely punished, they will continue to gnaw their way into traditional culture around the world.
David Brear (copyright 2011)